Skip to main content

Full text of "Principal Grant's inaugural address delivered at Queen's University, Kingston on University Day"

See other formats


Grorrxt, G.1A. 







Qjtowtt a Intuerattg 
iEthrarg 



KINGSTON, ONTARIO 



C^A^^^ 



With Chancellor Fleming's Compliments. ~S 



PRINCIPAL GRANTS 



INAUGURAL ADDRESS, 



DELIVERED AT 



Queen's University, Kingston, 



UNIVERSITY DAY. 



TORONTO 
PRINTED BY THE GRIP PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 

i88q. 



PRINCIPAL GRANT'S 



INAUGURAL ADDRESS, 



DELIVERED AT 



Queen's University, Kingston, 



ON 



UNIVERSITY DAY. 



T O RONTO: 

PRINTED BY THE GRIP PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 

1885. 



\^<e>5 Qr7 



Queen's University, Nov. 1st, 1885. 

I feel it my duty to transmit to you the Principal's Addres 
delivered at Convocation on " University Day," this Session. 

I wish to invite your attention to the Address and to point out fc 
those who have the best interests of the University at 'heart, the con 
elusions at which the Principal has arrived with respect to the futur 
of Queen's. 

May I ask you to take immediate steps to enrol yourself and other 
as members or associate members of the Endowment Association. Th 
year 1886 will be the first year of membership, and we earnestl; 
desire to enter the year with a good list of members. Ladies are to b 
enrolled as associate members, and the subscription for gentlemen o 
ladies may be one dollar or upwards, per annum. The amount 
entirely optional. It is felt that a large number of members at a lo\ 
rate of subscription will much more effectively promote the objects o 
the Association, than a small number at a high rate. Pray do no 
delay returning the accompanying form filled up for membership fo 
the year 1886. 

SANDFORD FLEMING, 
President Queen's University Endowment Association. 



PRINCIPAL GRANTS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 



The subject of University education has been pretty well discussed 
and conferred about for the past two or three years, and now that 
there is a lull, it may be well to ask ourselves what was the object of 
the discussions and the conferences. It is necessary to have clear con- 
ceptions on this point, in order that we may ascertain whether any 
progress has been made, and what our duty is at the present time. It 
is all the more necessary, because the subject was complicated with so 
many side issues, personal and local, sectarian and political, that it is 
little wonder that the general public got a somewhat hazy idea of what 
was actually involved, and consequently became rather wearied with 
what seemed a never-ending, still-beginning war of words. The 
subject was looked at persistently from the standpoint of " Denomina- 
tional Grants" by writers who forget nothing and never forgive. 
Local and sectarian prejudices animated gentlemen who protested most 
loudly their special freedom from every kind of bias. Some, whose 
idea of a great concert is " all the fiddles of the country in one big hall," 
were willing to sacrifice the money and rights of other people and 
other places to any extent in order to have a " great " University. To 
many the question at issue was between what they called State and 
Sectarian Universities respectively. To them every University had to 
be labelled " provincial " or " denominational." They were placidly 
ignorant of the fact that such terms, far from giving any real informa- 
tion, are simply misleading ; that Oxford and Edinburgh are denomina- 
tional, yet national ; and that a living University has always the 
warrant for its existence in itself, and is to be judged by what it is and 
what it is actually doing. Two or three illustrations may be given to 
show the haze through which people saw the subject. One paper 
published in Toronto, by way of deprecating heated discussion, 
remarked that it was of little consequence whether University College 
did or did not get a few hundred dollars a year more than its present 
revenue. A wise remark, but the writer hardly hit the point at issue. 
At a meeting of the Senate or Convocation of Toronto University, held 
last spring, a distinguished professor explained the draft of the con~ 
federation scheme that has been given to the public. Being asked how 
much money it would cost to carry out the scheme, he answered, 
" Forty or fifty thousand dollars," and his questioner then asked With 



£().: 



I 



the utmost simplicity if the Professor meant that as a capital sum, 
the same amount annually ! Greater authorities than those to whoi 
have referred seem to me — with submission, be it said — to have r. 
equally hazy notions on the subject. The Globe declared it to be 
matter of first consequence, if only under such a scheme it is possi 
to secure a University education second to no other at any seat 
learning on the Continent." Some of us might think this aim 
modest and also too ambitious. It is possible to believe that Canadis 
can even now get at one of their own principal Universities 
education second to no other at any seat of learning on the Continei 
and at the same time to believe that even if the four Ontario Univ 
sities were rolled into one, the joint product could not compete w: 
Harvard or Yale in historic associations, with Cornell or Columbia 
real or anticipated wealth, with Johns Hopkins in post-graduate wo: 
or with a dozen others as regards numbers of Professors or in spec 
departments of study. We might also think that any scheme tl 
proposed to improve the condition of higher education in Ontai 
would be worthy of the most careful consideration, even though 
gave no promise that the Ontario University would thereby be seco 
to none on the Continent. 

According to the Week, the vital point, " the real question,' 
whether " Ontario can hope to maintain more than one Universi 
sufficiently large and sufficiently well equipped to give a first-r* 
education, literary and scientific, according to the standard of t 
present day." And apparently, as a standard, Cornell is pointed 
with a problematical endowment of ten millions. There is no m 
with whom I would rather see eye to eye on educational matters th 
with the chief contributor to the Week, because of his brilliant reco: 
and because his aims are high and unselfish, but his statement as 
the real question at issue in the University discussion, shows that 
looks at the subject from a high a priori point of view, from which 
is utterly impossible that he should either get or give lignt. Preside 
Elliot of Harvard, says that there is not a University worthy of t 
name in the United States. Yet, if he proposed to get such an ins 
tution by breaking up Harvard into two, and sending out a boneh 
invitation to all the other Universities in New England, or even 
Massachusetts, to move to Cambridge, he would be looked upon as 
eager aspirant for Bedlam. He knows that there is a more excelk 
way. The way is for Harvard to go on growing as it has grown 
the last half century. Well, if there is no University yet in the Unit 
States, a wave of the magic wand of our Minister of Education w 
hardly call one into existence in Ontario. But, we may secure son 
thing that will suit our development and our environment better th 
a University in the clouds. On the one hand, there is no need that 
the " scientific" education of a country should be at one centre, 
far as I know, there is no country, great or small, in the univer 



lere it is so concentrated. Massachusetts students of science are not 
aited to. Harvard. The majority of them prefer the Institute of 

chnology in Boston, not to speak fo the other Universities in Massa- 
usetts. In New York State one student of science goes to Columbia, 
Lother to Hoboken, another to Rochester, another to Cornell, another 

Troy, while a good many go to neighbouring Lehigh or other places, 
le distributive principle is best. Hoboken is enabled to offer special 
cilities in technical science ; Lehigh, situated in the very centre of a 
ining region, offers peculiar advantages to a student of mineralogy, 
le same rule of distribution even in the matter of scientific apparatus 
)lds good in every part of the Old World. Sir William Thomson does 
)t think it necessary to have all kinds of apparatus at his hands even 

the one department of science in which he i& Jjhe acknowledged 
•imate. Although in a great University in the second wealthiest city 

the Empire, he thinks it no hardship to run down from Glasgow to 
nduct experiments in electricity in the Cavendish Laboratory at 
ambridge, and very likely he has gone to Paris fo^ohe same purpose. 
r hy should we think it necessary to bring to one city all the scientific 
oparatus that may be required in connection with the daily widening 
|)here of the knowable, and to mass in the same place all students and 
.1 possible means of instruction ? On the other hand, the Week has con- 
Istently adhered to the position that for "literacy." education several 
rts Colleges are indispensable. But the so-called " confederation " 
sheme has not a single clause to secure the continued existence of the 
)lleges we now have, much less a single word indicating a desire to 
nprove them. It proposes to bring the existing colleges together, but 
le proposal is a ghost. It has not a particle of bone, flesh, nerve, or 
on. It is simply a bare invitation to the colleges to throw aside their 
barters, associations, dignity, local strength ; to uproot themselves at 
aeir own expense, and move to Toronto, just as if it were as easy for 

University to move one or two hundred miles as for a crab that 
ravels with its home on its back. If, then, the colleges can accede to 
be scheme only at the sacrifice of the greater part of their funds at 
tie outset, and in all probability of their continued existence as arts 
olleges, how are you to get your " first-rate literary education"? 
tactical teachers, like Mr. Robertson, of St. Catharines, may well ask, 
How will the scheme give us strong colleges, a high standard, and 
bove all, strong and efficient teaching and judicious examinations?" 
ad,' if graduates of Toronto, will probably answer with him, that far 
rom giving us several good colleges they "see no security in the 
cheme of confederation, for the main elements of one good college and 
diversity, but do see that the evils which now weaken and lessen the 
»ower for good of University College and Toronto University, viz 
omewhat ineffective teaching and bad examining may be extended, if 
11 rivalry in the form of competing Universities should be abolished." 
Evidently the only fit parallel to the scheme is the killing the goose 



that laid the golden eggs. Briefly then, even if Ontario could begu 
with a clean sheet and combine all its resources on one University, i 
could not produce an Oxford, Paris or Berlin. But it cannot begii 
with a clean sheet, and it is all the better that it cannot. Wise mer 
lived before Agamemnon ; and wise men do not disparage the goo( 
work done by their fathers or throw away the accumulated sacrifice: 
of fifty years. Besides, Ontario can do better than imitate the fro^ 
that would fain be a buffalo. It can recognize frankly and thankfully 
any good University within its borders. It may also offer to aid ii 
the fuller development of those that have attained to the requisite 
standard of efficiency, and it can do so without sacrifice of any rationa 
principle, and according to a policy equitable to different sections of th< 
Province, and likely to stimulate local and voluntary effort. All cai 
rejoice in the prosperity of any good institution, and, abstaining fron 
sneers that could easily be paid back in kind, if it were worth while 
can unite in seeking the common good. 

On this whole Subject of University centralization and of the dut} 
of the State, the recent inaugural address of the President of the 
British Association may well be studied by us. Sir Lyon Playfair it 
a man of affairs as well as a man of science ; and he spoke, knowing 
that he might soon be called upon to do all in his power to make hi* 
words good. He condemns the unwise parsimony of the British Par 
liament to Universities, in so far, more especially, as science is con 
cerned. He cites the case of little Holland which, with something like 
the population of Scotland, gives to its four Universities about five 
times as much annually as the Imperial Parliament gives to the foui 
Scottish Universities. Holland has double the population of Ontario 
It gives to its four Universities nearly $700,000 a year. How long 
would a Government stand with us if it proposed to vote one-seventh 
of such a sum annually ? The cases of France and other countries are 
also most striking, but I refer you for particulars to the address itself 
But while the President of the British Association calls on the Hercules 
of the State to put his shoulder to what is really the State's own wheel 
he repudiates centralization and all its works. He calls out for self- 
governing Universities rather than for affiliated colleges, that " may 
be turned into mere mills to grind out material for examinations and 
competitions." He would not uproot even little St. Andrew's. He 
would strengthen the four Scottish Universities, and he hopes thai 
the five in England may increase in due proportion to the population 
by the colleges .that have been recently established in different local 
centres developing into autonomous Universities. There are, he says 
emphatically, " too few autonomous Universities in England." 

I have been speaking of the object we had, or ought to have had, 
in view during the recent discussions of the University question in this 
Province and of the confusion of thought on the subject', and the in- 
adequate or false ideas entertained in different quarters. Coming now 



to the utterances of President Nelles, we expect to find lucidity and 
frankness, and we are not disappointed. No man in Canada has a 
better right than he to speak on University matters, and the one great 
inducement to me to consider favourably the confederation scheme, was 
the fact that in his opinion some such scheme was workable so tar at 
any rate as Victoria was concerned. With him, the object ot the whole 
movement was " neither federation of colleges, nor removal ot Victoria 
from the town of Cobourg, but a satisfactory system of higher educa- 
tion for the Province of Ontario, and an honourable and effective 
relation to that system on the part of the Methodist Church." Dr. 
Nelles had thus two objects before him, one educational and the other 
ecclesiastical. The relation that Victoria bears to the Methodist Church 
made it necessary that he should regard both objects, and from his 
point of view the two are inextricably united. We, however, can dis- 
tinguish between the two, and feel that the first must be the object ot 
every citizen, while the Methodist Church can be safely trusted to look 
after the second. It would be an impertinence in us to express an 
opinion as to what the policy of the Methodist Church should be, and 
its own answer to the confederation scheme has not been given. 

The representatives of Queen's occupied a position of peculiar in- 
dependence during the whole discussion. They were presenting no 
beo-ging box to the State ; and in the Presbyterian Church there is no 
one policy in University matters which they had to keep in view. 
The fullest freedom on the subject is laid down in the Church's basis 
of union. The representatives of Queen's were therefore in a position 
to keep before their minds one object from first to last. The only 
question they had to ask was, by what scheme can the most satis- 
factory system of higher education be obtained, or in what way can 
improvements be effected ? The relation of Queen's to State and 
Church enabled them to take this position. Like all historic Univer- 
sities, Queen's is self-governing. The trustees report annually to the 
General Assembly, and the Assembly as the supreme Court of the 
Church, every member of which is a corporator of the University, can 
instruct them as to the policy they should pursue. But the General 
Assembly can be depended upon to be faithful to the spirit of the 
Union, and to the history and traditions of the institutions connected 
with the Church. The Assembly has the power to remove Knox College 
or Montreal College to Kingston. In my opinion it would be unwise 
to do so, and certainly the Assembly will never do so in defiance of the 
feelings and votes of the graduates and benefactors of either of those 
institutions. Much less would it dream of uprooting the only Univer- 
sity connected with the Church, so long as it is fulfilling the great 
objects for which it was established and receives the hearty aid ot 
friends old and new, and the unanimous support of the section of the 
country whose educational wants it specially serves, and of a thousand 
graduates and alumni as loyal as any University in the world can boast. 



Owing thus to the position we occupied, the representatives of Queen's 
at the Conferences were able to give undivided attention to the one 
question of how best to improve the higher educatk>n of the country. 
In anticipation of the action taken by the Minister of Education, the 
University Council, at its annual meeting in April, 1884, carefully consid- 
ered the whole question, and came to the following conclusions: (1) That 

a University system similar to that of Scotland and New England was 
the one best adapted to our history and present condition, and most likely 
to secure the fullest development of the mind of the people and the 
resources of the country ; (2) That it was the duty of the government 
either to leave the Universities to depend upon the voluntary liberality 
which they are certain to receive in due time, or to aid the arts and 
science faculties in any University that was equipped and endowed up 
to a designated standard, according to the plan recognized by the British 
Government in its dealings with the Scottish and Irish Universities, and 
by the Government of Ontario in its regulations regarding High Schools 
and Collegiate Institutes. The creation of bogus and the undue multipli- 
cation of weak institutions would be prevented by a high standard of 
equipment and endowment, and wherever public money was oiven 
there would be commensurate public control. In other words, the*Uni- 
yersity Council said : — " On this subject, as on most others, the truth 
is between two extremes. A country may have too many Univer- 
sities ; it" may also have too few. Some people think that one is 
enough for Ontario. We think that there should be at least two ; and 
we would rather have four or five than only one." To this position 
we have adhered from the beginning. We hold it to-day more firmly 
than ever. 

I must now refer briefly to the conferences held last year; and 
I shall confine myself to what was said by the representatives of 
Queen's who were present. I have obtained their permission to refer 
to the position taken by them, because they and I have observed with 
astonishment that one or two writers have fathered the confederation 
scheme on us, in whole or part, or assumed that we are responsible for 
it, because we were present at, or shortly after, its incubation. I need 
hardly say that the assumption is preposterous. At the first conference 
I read a paper which I had previously sent to the Minister of Educa- 
tion, containing a plea for the conclusions of our University Council. 
But many of the gentlemen who had been invited to the conference 
•had their minds made up in favour of bringing all the arts colleges to 
a common centre in connection with one University, federating at the 
same time the theological colleges already in Toronto with the same 
University, and allowing five theological subjects a place in the Uni- 
versity curriculum. Seeing this, Dr. James Maclennan, Q.C., pointed 
out that while such a scheme might suit institutions in Toronto, or 
that desired to migrate there, it would not apply to any established in 
other suitable centres, and that if it was to be advocated on o-rounds 



of public policy, ample Government provision must be expressly made 
for such cases, and also that it would be useless to submit any scheme 
to the authorities of Queen's that was not fair all round. The force 
of these remarks was universally admitted, as the minute that was 
afterwards formulated of the first conference will show, should it be 
called for and published. At the opening of a subsequent conference 
the substance of the scheme was submitted that was given to the 
public in January last. It outlined a plan that few University men 
could regard with enthusiasm, and even those most in favour of it 
acknowledged it to be a compromise based upon no intelligible prin- 
ciple. It was neither consolidation nor confederation, nor did it 
attempt to grapple with the problem of how to get a system adequate 
to the necessities of the whole Province. It seemed to us simply a 
scheme to enable Victoria and Toronto to unite. As a distinguished 
member of the Senate of Toronto University said subsequently, " Queen's 
was out of the question from the outset." Therefore, the Chancellor and 
I took little part in the discussion, and at the close I read a paper that we 
had drawn up, setting forth that we had attended the conferences with- 
out prejudice, and that while we would submit the draft to the authori- 
ties of Queen's as that of the only scheme that a majority of those 
present thought feasible, we declined all responsibility for it, and even 
declined to sanction its being given. to the public till time was afforded 
us to explain our position in the affair to our constituents. How gen- 
erally and impartially it was submitted to the constituency of Queen's, 
the Chancellor explained at last Convocation. How absolutely unani- 
mous was the feeling evoked with reference to it you all know. From 
professors, students, and graduates, from city, county, and Province, 
from our friends in the other Provinces, in Great Britain and the United 
States, the response was the same. We have taken our standi. No 
matter what may be 1 the action of the other Universities, and neither 
Trinity nor Victoria has yet given a final answer — there shall not be 
absolute centralization in higher education in this country. Queen's 
will remain an autonomous University. Against this decision, there 
has not been a whisper of dissent, and I may add that among those 
who have congratulated us most warmly on it are independent and 
thoughtful graduates of Toronto. 

It is hardly necessary to say that this community of sentiment 
on our part was the result not of one cause or motive. Different 
men came to the same conclusion for different reasons. Some 
were influenced by that natural conservatism and caution which 
is part of the furniture of the most radical Scottish mind, 
which teaches that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, 
and that it is highly unwise to throw away your old shoes till you 
know where you are to get new ones. Others were animated by a pride 
in their alma mater, a desire to see her go on growing with the growth 
of the country as an independent University, a conviction that she has 



10 

a great work to do for Canada, a reluctance to let her subside into the 
humble position of a federated college in a novel and apparently one- 
sided confederation, and a modest confidence in their own power and 
will to aid in her future development. Some looked no farther than 
the benefits conferred on Kingston by the University, and in the spirit of 
ordinary hucksters counted up the numbed of dollars that the professors 
and students spent annually in the place. Others, of a far different 
spirit, looked at the scheme from a church point of view, and, longing 
for a strong theological college like Union, saw in it an opportunity of 
realizing their ideal, but like true patriots the general good weighed 
down in their estimation the special good that it promised their Church. 
Not a few, also occupying the Presbyterian standpoint, opposed the 
scheme because they believed that the life of the Church would be 
fuller and richer by the preservation in their entirety of its distinctive 
theological schools. These men appreciate Queen's because of the 
spirit of its students. They do not estimate a school of thought by 
the number of its professors or the number of its students, or its money 
power. For Divinity students, they would rather have one man like 
Dr. Cook than a dozen ordinary teachers, and they believe that if a 
professor does his duty to twenty, thirty, or forty students, he is not 
eating the bread of idleness. Some of our best University men were 
at the outset in favour of a greater concentration of our scanty educa- 
tional resources, and with these, in my moments of despondency, 
I sympathized ; but they demanded as prime conditions of their assent 
to any change full compensation for the losses that would be incurred 
in removal, and also that no invidious distinctions should be made 
between the component parts of the new University. When there was 
any hesitation in granting these conditions they suspected the honesty 
of those who talked confederation, and when they found that the 
scheme lacked both, they rejected it with more vehemence than any- 
body else. To these men the provision by which the arts curriculum 
was to be partly theological for as many candidates as chose, condemned 
the whole scheme. Such a provision was contrary to all their ideas of 
what the B. A. degree should represent. Others were from the outset 
opposed on principle to both the teaching and examining concentration 
sought for. They pointed out that wherever and whenever the intel- 
lectual life of a country is vigorous it has manifested itself in the 
establishment of colleges and Universities of different types at every 
important centre ; that we have no example in history of the best 
results flowing from a monopolizing of all higher educational work 
by one institution; and tliat here in particular the results would 
simply be a great consumption of red tape and hopeless stagnation in 
University matters. Whatever the views of this or that section of our 
friends, they all came to the same conclusion, and last June the Chan- 
cellor informed the Minister of Education accordingly. 



11 

Mr. Micawber would think that the matter was now settled. But, 
Mr. Micawber was not a graduate of .Queen's. To our view a heavier 
responsibility rests on us than ever before. The object of the move- 
ment, in which all of us have taken part, was a desire to improve 
higher education. We desired this for its own sake and in the interest 
of all education, for it is a sound maxim that if you would improve 
the education of a country you must begin at the top. This being the 
case, our duty is plain. We must go on building on the broad founda- 
tions laid by our fathers till we make Queen's in reality all that it is 
in our dreams. Should the Government in the general interest estab- 
lish a school of science here, we would be enabled to develop more fully 
other sides of the University, but we would not thereby have the 
voluntary burden lightened which we have assumed. We were 
tempted to throw the burden off. In what we believe to be the best 
interests of the country, we have resisted the temptation. But if we 
now go to sleep, it would have been better had we yielded. Univer- 
sities all over the world are doing their utmost to make their grasp 
commensurate with the widening field of knowledge. They are calling 
loudly upon Governments, and with far more hope upon those who 
believe that wealth is a trust, to do their duty. The call in our day is 
something like that which was made to Europe at the revival of learn- 
ing between the fourteenth and sixteeth centuries. Nobly did princes 
and bishops, lords and ladies, individual burghers and cities, country 
gentlemen and humble priests, then respond to the call. Their founda- 
tions have been fountains of generous influence to all the generations 
that have come after them. Their names have been inspirations to the 
scholars who from age to age have lit the torch of learning at their 
shrines, for their own enlightenment and the light of the world. And 
now these ancient Universities, enriched with benefactions and un- 
earned increment for three, four, five, six centuries or more, do not 
hesitate to tell the public that they are not rich enough to do the work of 
the nineteenth century. Is it any wonder that I should have to state 
from time to time what are our immediate needs, and is not this a fit 
time ? Instead of wondering that I should do so, you ought to be 
astonished at my moderation. 

We should have, within the next few years, five additional profess- 
orships in arts and science, formed chiefly by dividing, in almost every 
section of the curriculum, work that is too extensive for one man. 
Professor Ferguson will give his whole time to history, whenever we 
can get a chair of English language and literature. If that cannot be 
done at once, we should, as a temporary arrangement, engage an 
assistant. A chair of modern languages is also one of our first 
necessities. In the present condition of natural sciences, to ask the 
same man to teach botany, geology, and zoology is almost an absurdity. 
The chairs of ancient classics and mental and moral philosophy should 
be divided. We require an additional building for the science depart- 



12 

ment, some good travelling fellowships, and an assistant or tutors in 
connection with almost every chair on account of the increasing 
number of our students. We should have at least a thousand dollars 
a year more for the library and a fund from which appropriations 
could be made for the museum, the laboratories, and the observatory. 
Dr. Williamson states that $4,000 is needed for a new equatorial, with 
spectroscopic and photographic appliances, and other modern equip- 
ment for the observatory, and he himself has done so much to add to 
the apparatus of the University that this modest demand should be 
attended to promptly. 

For the most clamant of these purposes, and to provide for the 
seven thousand dollars a year of revenue, for which we have a sub- 
scription list good for only two years more, we need an addition to our 
capital of quarter of a million dollars or its annual equivalent. What 
prospect have we of getting this amount ? It is a large sum, but then 
it is not to be wasted in peripatetics, but to be applied to doubling our 
capacity for usefulness. As the three chairs most recently instituted 
in Queen's, the chair of physics, the chair of chemistry, and the third 
chair in the faculty of theology, are still dependent on fluctuating 
annual contributions, it would be unwise to appoint any of the 
additional professors needed in arts until our capital has been largely 
increased. Where the money is to come from I know not. Certainly, 
our trust is not in politicians. As for the principal and professors, 
they intend to continue devoting their whole time and strength to 
their proper work. They assume no special responsibility in the 
matter of finance beyond what they feel as graduates or men interested 
in University education. I believe, however, that the money will come. 
My faith may seem to some to savour of presumption, but it is enough 
to point to the example of George Munro giving $20,000 a year to 
Dalhousie University in Halifax, and Senator McMaster giving $16,000 
a year to a Divinity Hall in Toronto, not to speak of what men like 
Donald A. Smith and the Redpaths have recently done for McGill, to 
show that Canadians are awakening to their duty, and that they can 
be as liberal and as wise as the wealthy men of the United States. 
Everything that I have asked from the friends of Queen's since I 
responded to their invitation to come from the east nearly eight years 
ago, has been done, and never were they in better heart than now. 
They point to the significant fact that in no University in the 
Dominion are there so many students in proportion to the endowment, 
and their recent action shows that they are satisfied with our work. 
With regard to what they should do now as a body, I have no better 
suggestion to offer than that they should make the Association which 
was organized at last Convocation a thorough success. The Chancellor 
is President of the Association, and he can be depended on to do his 
duty. But he must be supported. He asks every graduate and friend 
of Queen's not only to join the Association promptly, but to get a list 



13 

of members in his neighbourhood. To all of these our calendars and 
reports will be sent regularly, as well as addresses delivered from time 
to time, and any documents published in the interests of the University. 
This Association will show who are our friends. The larger the 
membership the louder the answer from us that Queen's is not to be 
eliminated in whole or in part from the higher life of the country. 

A word now to the students. Gentlemen, — Remember that no 
matter what University you attend, the professors can do little for you 
compared to what you can do for yourselves. Have a clear under- 
standing of what you have come here for. Not, I hope, without 
an aim. Not, I hope, with paltry aims. Not merely to get credit for 
passing certain classes or examinations that this or that profession has 
made p re-requisites to a professional career; not merely to get marks or 
to get a degree, but to get education. You cannot get that by stealing- 
other men's brains. You must work your own brain. You cannot get 
it by any system of cram or intellectual legerdemain, or by looking out 
for a soft place in the calendar. You can get it only by being infused 
with the holy spirit of education. You can get it only by being honest 
with yourselves. And you must be honest from the beginning of the 
session. It has been noted as a singular fact since women have been 
admitted to the Universities, that their average standing is higher 
than that taken by men. Why ? Because their brains are larger, 
stronger, better ? Not at all. I still hold to the old faith, that man is 
the head of creation. As a rule he has the bigger brain. The credit- 
able, intellectual stand women have taken is mainly due to their moral 
earnestness. They are more conscientious than men. They work 
from the beginning of the session. 



Immediately after the above address was delivered the friends and 
members of the Endowment Association who were present held a 
meeting, when stirring speeches were made and the following resolu- 
tions unanimously passed : — 

1. Moved by Rev. K. McLennan, M. A., seconded by John Mclntyre, 
Q. C, and 

« 

Resolved, That this meeting cordially approves of the steps already taken in the 
formation of a University Endowment Association, to further the interests of the 
University. 

2. Moved by R. T. Walkem, Q. C, seconded by D. Smythe, Q. C, 
mayor of Kingston, and 



14 

Resolved, That this meeting further recommends that diligent efforts be made to 
secure the formation of Branch Associations in the various counties and districts of 
the country in which alumni and friends of the University are situated. 

3. Moved by G. M. Macdonnell, Q. C, seconded by John Carruthers, 
Esq., and 

Resolved, That immediate steps be taken to obtain members in Kingston, for 
the Association. 



I 









5